House of Commons - Foreign Affairs

Select Committee on Foreign Affairs First Report

5 States of concern

101. The Government rejected the Committee's assertion that the Annual Report did not place enough focus on human rights abuses throughout the Russian Federation in its last response to our previous Report.[146] This year the Annual Report covers Russia in some detail in its Countries of Concern section. In particular, it looks at the lack of media freedom in Russia, growing racism and xenophobia, and increasing constraints on the NGO community.[147]

102. The Report also includes an extensive section covering the turbulent North Caucasus, including matters of concern such as: disappearances and the work of killing squads in Chechnya; the undemocratic government in Chechnya underpinned by Ramzan Kadyrov's militia; and the corruption of the judiciary in the North Caucasus region.[148]

103. The Report takes into account the problem of terrorism in Chechnya, and accepts that Moscow has legitimate security concerns in the region. However it does not mention that the conflict has begun to spread beyond the borders of the Chechen Republic, and now threatens the neighbouring republics of Dagestan, Ingushetia, North Ossetia, Karbardino Balkaria, and the rest of the North Caucasus region, as the attacks in Nalchik on 13 October 2005 demonstrated.[149]

104. The problem of human rights abuses in Russia is broader than just the North Caucasus. One submission to the inquiry raised a series of concerns about human rights in the Russian Federation as a whole. According to Anton Drel and Robert Amsterdam, who acted as laywers on behalf on Mikhail Khordokovsky, the jailed former owner of oil company Yukos, the FCO Human Rights Report "fails to connect the tragedy of Russian human rights today with the overall deterioration in the Corruption Perception Index as reported by Transparency International. The Russian Federation's Corruption Perception Index 2004 score was 90th out of 146 countries. In 2005 it was 126th out of 159 countries. We would argue that it is…corruption of the state administration that is a propulsive force behind the deterioration both in judicial independence and overall judicial corruption."[150] The submission also emphasised the political control of the judiciary as a major problem in Russia.[151] These concerns are particularly relevant given the adoption of the recent law curtailing the freedom of civil society organisations in Russia, which is another example of the looming power of the Kremlin which is of concern to the Committee.[152]

105. Human Rights Watch also criticised the United Kingdom's attitude to human rights in Russia, and said: "The report says that the UK 'pointed out that effective antiterrorism policies and respect for human rights are not mutually exclusive. Proper observance of human rights can be very effective in combating terrorism.' Sadly, there is a wide gap between the sentiments expressed here and the message that is sent by senior ministers, in their meetings with Russian government leaders and their public statements in that context. There still seems to be an eagerness not to confront the extent of the crimes being committed in Chechnya, let alone the fact that the crimes in Chechnya are now spilling over into greater instability in the entire region."[153]

106. However, the Minister for Human Rights contended that human rights were an important part of exchanges between Russia and the United Kingdom. He said: "During President Putin's visit to London…both he and the Prime Minister conducted high level talks regarding human rights issues, and we do have an EU/Russia and a UK/Russia human rights dialogue as well where we raise specifically our areas of concern with them."[154] He also pointed to the Government's concerns about extrajudicial killings, arbitrary detentions and torture.[155]

107. We conclude that the human rights situation in the Russian Federation has deteriorated over the last year. We recommend that the Government make clear to President Putin and other Russian authorities that a creeping return to authoritarianism is not an acceptable policy to pursue. We also recommend that the British Government engage with the Russian government on the question of Chechnya and the North Caucasus. We are concerned that the Kremlin's policy in Chechnya may result in further radicalisation of the population and an increase in recruits to Islamic terrorist groups.

108. The allegations of spying in Moscow by British diplomats also raise serious concerns about the Government's work to promote democracy and good governance. There is a risk that the FCO's support for human rights and democracy in the Russian Federation could be jeopardised by any linkage to UK intelligence operations. The allegations of spying also raises concerns about the effective use of the Global Opportunities Fund by the FCO to support NGO activity, since doubts about its lack of independence from FCO objectives within foreign governments could damage the effectiveness of the United Kingdom's work in support of democracy. The Westminster Foundation for Democracy, which operates under a board of governors representing all the political parties and with a large independent contingent while receiving its budget from the FCO, provides an interesting contrast; its work is carried out at arms length from the FCO and so would not so easily be subject to accusations of acting purely in the interests of the United Kingdom.[156] We have written to the FCO to inquire into this matter, and will be reporting further to the House in due course.

UZBEKISTAN

109. The Government has brought human rights to the forefront of its relationship with Uzbekistan. The former ambassador to Tashkent, Craig Murray, had accused the FCO of subordinating human rights to strategic concerns. The 2005 Annual Report singled out Uzbekistan as a country of concern, as it did in its 2004 Annual Report, and included sections on:

Torture in prisons, thanks to a system of justice based on confessions;

The lack of access to prisons for diplomats;

The lack of independence of the judiciary;

Slow movement towards the abolition of the death penalty, which the Karimov government has now announced;

Controls on civil society organisations, both international and local;

Media control;

Lack of religious freedom.

110. The Report also draws attention to the massacres at Andijan in May 2005 in response to local protests against the arrest of a number of people for Islamic extremism. A Human Rights Watch report outlined the scale of the event: troops killed perhaps 500 protesters and arrested hundreds in the aftermath. Many detainees were tortured, and 15 people suspected of leading the protests were tried in Tashkent and were sentenced to imprisonment in November 2005.[157]

111. Frictions over the Andijan protests have contributed to worsened relations between Tashkent and the US and British governments, which resulted in the decision of Uzbekistan to request the dismantling of the US military bases in Uzbekistan, as well as with the European Union, which in October 2005 introduced an arms embargo on Uzbekistan, prohibited visas for senior officials and suspended its Partnership and Cooperation Agreement (PCA) with Tashkent.[158] The EU arms embargo raises questions about Uzbekistan's role in NATO's Partnership for Peace (PfP). The British Government has made clear that it will continue to demand an independent inquiry into the events at Andijan and will urge the Uzbek government to improve human rights. Last year, the Committee endorsed the FCO's decision to make human rights issues the focus of relations with Tashkent.[159]

112. Our witnesses made some mild criticisms of the Government's policy towards Uzbekistan. Human Rights Watch argue in their submission that maintaining pressure on Uzbekistan is essential, but contend that the claims in the Annual Report to have made progress on combating torture "is an exaggeration" because legislative changes have no substantial impact in Uzbekistan.[160] Their submission also raised the question of the United Kingdom's military assistance to Uzbekistan before the Andijan massacres including training in marksmanship and "managing defence in a democracy".[161]

113. Steve Crawshaw emphasised the importance of maintaining pressure on Uzbekistan. "What would be very important…is that there is not the sense that. 'We have now taken action that was needed and now we can move and forget about this.' There is a visa ban for senior members of the regime…but I think that it is very important for it not to stop there, because Karimov still believes that he is sitting pretty, and he does not need to be under pressure."[162] However, it was recently reported that Uzbekistan's Interior Minister, Zakirjan Almatov, has taken cancer treatment in Germany despite having his name on a EU-wide visa ban.[163] We note that Germany has also maintained a military base in Uzbekistan, and is the only NATO member to do so.[164]

114. Commenting on the Government's policy towards Uzbekistan, the Minister said: "We supported the reorientation of the [European] Commission's funding programme in Uzbekistan to support an increased focus on poverty reduction and…democracy and human rights in a civil society."[165] He added that the United Kingdom had sponsored a UN General Assembly Resolution on human rights in Uzbekistan, and that the Government was "now calling very strongly on Uzbekistan to abide by what the UN resolution actually says."[166]

115. We conclude that the Government must maintain pressure on the Islam Karimov regime in Uzbekistan. We recommend that the Government should work hard to establish a consensus with its allies in the EU and NATO, including Germany, to put pressure on the Uzbek government and to add weight to its call for reform.

Africa

Angola

116. Angola's growing importance as an oil exporter has added to its strategic importance, but the FCO Annual Report contains very little information on the state of human rights in Angola. Human Rights Watch raised serious concerns about ongoing abuses following the end of the civil war in Angola in 2002, such as the failure of the government to support the reintegration of refugees from the civil war, despite adopting legislation in 2002 which obliges them to do so; a catalogue of abuses in Angola's exclave Cabinda committed by the army, which include arbitrary detentions and torture despite the end of the separatist conflict; and limits to press freedom outside the capital of Lusaka.[167]

117. Kate Allen told us: "There is very little mention in the report of Angola. We do, from Amnesty, have some very clear concerns. There are, and there continue to be, clashes between the MPLA and UNITA. We see a country where one million civilians were estimated to hold firearms illegally, with all the effect of that. We are aware of some improvement in police behaviour, but there are still very many reports of the police committing human rights abuses."[168]

118. Human Rights Minister Ian Pearson wrote to the Committee and said: "We are supporting projects related to human rights and conflict prevention. The UK is particularly concerned about the problem of illegally held small arms and light weapons in Angola and is working closely with the Angolan government to reduce this. We have recently agreed a contribution of $286,622 towards the cost of the first phase of the HALO Trust's support to the Angolan government's civil disarmament effort."[169]

119. We recommend that the Government include more information about its work to strengthen human rights standards in Angola in its Human Rights Annual Report.

DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC OF CONGO (DRC)

120. The Annual Report includes a lengthy section on the human rights abuses in the DRC. The Report marks its particular concerns as the abuses which occurred and are occurring in north-eastern DRC, in Ituri, which have included rape, murder, torture, cannibalism, forced labour and illegal detention. The lack of security is another major concern throughout the DRC, and means that people are unable to tend their land, as is the intervention by the DRC's neighbours, such as Uganda and Rwanda, in its civil war.[170] The Report also describes the United Kingdom's work on human rights in the DRC, which has included raising the problems with senior members of the government, funding programmes through the Department for International Development, and support for MONUC, the UN Mission in the DRC. The Report also makes mention of the MONUC's problems with sexual abuse by its troops.[171]

121. Human Rights Watch raised the problem of mineral resource exploitation and conflict in their submission, and stated that: "The UK Government is playing an important role in highlighting concerns about natural resource exploitation through its development programme funded in Congo by the Department for International Development...The British government could play an important role by ensuring the application of appropriate business standards."[172]

122. We conclude that the appalling human rights abuses in the Democratic Republic of Congo are a matter of grave concern. We recommend that the Government make clear to the Democratic Republic of Congo and its neighbours that interference is unacceptable. We further recommend that the Government do its utmost to ensure that those guilty of human rights abuses in the DRC are held accountable for their crimes.

EQUATORIAL GUINEA

123. The Annual Report contains very little information about human rights in Equatorial Guinea despite the large number of human rights abuses perpetrated by the government of Teodoro Obiang. The Committee raised the question of human rights in Equatorial Guinea with the Foreign Office.

124. The Foreign Secretary wrote to our Chairman, saying: "The human rights situation in Equatorial Guinea gives cause for considerable concern, particularly the poor prison conditions, torture, and the lack of freedom of expression and good governance…We have not yet discussed the 2008-09 elections with the Equato-Guineans. But we will urge the Government bilaterally and through the EU to make the considerable improvements needed to ensure the elections are free, fair and without violence. At the last elections in 2004, the UK provided transparent ballot boxes."[173]

125. We conclude that the Annual Report should include information about the state of human rights in Equatorial Guinea, and that the Government should press the Equato-Guinean authorities to improve human rights.

ERITREA AND ETHIOPIA

126. Last year, the Committee raised concerns about the border dispute between Eritrea and Ethiopia as a source of tension between the two states, which remains deeply worrying, and with the human rights situation in Eritrea. The Government told the Committee in its response that the "Government are concerned by the human rights situation in Eritrea and raise this issue with the Eritrean government at every suitable opportunity," going on to describe the EU-Eritrea dialogue on human rights.[174]

127. However, the 2005 Annual Report makes little mention of the problems in Eritrea. In contrast, Human Rights Watch says: "Eritrea is a highly repressive state. Since independence, the only political party that has been allowed to operate in the country is the ruling People's Front for Democracy and Justice (PFDJ) led by President Issayas Afewerki. During this period, no national elections have been held. National elections were scheduled to be held in 1997 and in 2001, but both times they were cancelled. Political dissent is now totally suppressed. In September 2001, the government arrested eleven leaders of the PFDJ… Since then, scores of other Eritreans have been arrested because of their alleged ties to the dissidents or for their perceived political views. The Eritrean government has also arrested publishers, editors, and reporters—and even two Eritrean employees of the U.S. State Department, apparently in retaliation for a U.S. statement critical of these other arrests."[175]

128. Eritreans for Human and Democratic Rights (EHDR) commented on the human rights situation in their submission, saying: "The Eritrean government continued [in 2005] to rule by decree and remained not accountable to anybody. The country is run without a constitution, rule of law and a budget. Arbitrary arrests and detentions are widespread and its economy is in freefall."[176] EHDR also described the arrests of the 11 government officials in 2001, the suppression of free journalism, the murder of 161 Eritreans escaping from the Wia military training/detention camp, and the repression of minority evangelical Christians.[177]

129. The FCO wrote to the Committee, saying: "we have repeatedly urged the Eritrean government to respect religious and media freedom and the principles of international human rights. We have also asked for detainees who are held without charge to be released quickly."[178]

130. Recent events in Ethiopia have also raised serious human rights concerns. Following an election in May 2005, Prime Minister Meles Zenawi arrested a number of opposition politicians and activists who claimed the polls were rigged. Another series of protests in early November resulted in arrests; the Ethiopian government now claims that the detainees will face treason charges and so the death sentence.[179] The FCO wrote to us, saying: "We have expressed particular concern over the killing of demonstrators and the arrests of opposition leaders and supporters and urge the government to allow the opposition political parties to function without intimidation and that there should be an independent inquiry into these events. The Ethiopian Parliament has now approved this."[180]

131. The prospects of war between Ethiopia and Eritrea are also growing. Eritrea expelled US, Canadian and European members of the United Nations Mission to Ethiopia and Eritrea in December 2005, and contention over the frontier dispute has led to the massing of troops by both states.[181] Commenting on Eritrea's decision to expel the UN, Lord Triesman, the FCO Minister with responsibility for Africa, said: "The Government of Eritrea must reverse its decision immediately, and comply with the demands contained within the UN Security Council Resolution 1640…Lasting peace between Ethiopia and Eritrea cannot be achieved without the full demarcation of the border between the parties, and the UK remains fully committed to seeing both Eritrea and Ethiopia fulfil their commitments in this regard."[182]

132. The FCO wrote to us, saying: "We continue to underline to the governments of both Eritrea and Ethiopia that there must be no return to war; that the decision of the Boundary Commission is final and binding, and must be implemented; and that they should engage in dialogue on all the issues that divide them. We are working closely with the UN and Security Council partners to achieve a political resolution to this problem."[183]

133. We conclude that a resumption of hostilities in the Horn of Africa would seriously damage human rights in the region, and recommend that in its response to this Report the Government set out what measures it is taking with its Security Council partners to prevent an outbreak of war and establish respect for human rights and democratic governance in the region.

SUDAN

134. The Annual Report includes a lengthy section on human rights in Sudan in its Countries of Concern section, which among other matters comments on: the signing of a peace agreement on 9 January 2005; the dreadful humanitarian situation in Darfur, where 70,000 people died between March and October 2004 alone; efforts in the UN Security Council to resolve the Darfur crisis; the referral of the Darfur situation to the International Criminal Court; the commitment of £119.5 million in humanitarian aid; and other human rights abuses in Sudan.[184]

135. Amnesty International condemned the human rights abuses in their submission, but had some praise for the Government. "The UK Government has played a key role in responding to the crisis in Darfur. It was instrumental in securing UN Security Council resolution 1593 which referred the situation in Darfur to the International Criminal Court (ICC)…Ministers continue to give their attention to this conflict…It is crucial that the UK government ensures that the situation in Darfur remains high up its agenda and that it continues to apply pressure on the government of Sudan."[185] Amnesty International also pointed to the United Kingdom's role in supporting the work of the UN/African Union mission in Darfur. Human Rights Watch added that they

welcome the first step to sanctions, but note that the framework for sanctions remains extremely weak: as of November 2005, not a single individual has yet been sanctioned despite a serious escalation in the violence over the past two months. Considerable work will be needed at the Security Council to ensure that sanctions are in fact imposed and enforced on key individuals.[186]

136. One particular difficulty in bringing pressure to bear on the Sudanese government is the scale of its oil trade with China, which means that sanctions regimes do not function effectively. Currently, China receives about 5% of its oil imports from Sudan, and has invested about $3 billion in the oil industry.[187] Additionally, Beijing reportedly has 4000 non-uniformed forces protecting its interests in Sudan.[188]Without support from China, any actions sponsored in the UN Security Council may face failure.

137. We conclude that the Government must maintain pressure in all possible forums on the Sudanese government in order to bring the abuses in Darfur to an end. We recommend that the Government continue to call for an end to the slaughter and an end to the immunity of the abuses from judicial proceedings, to support referrals to the International Criminal Court, and to offer resources to the African Union and UN missions in Darfur. We also recommend that the Government urge its Chinese counterparts to support UN Security Council measures against Sudan.

UGANDA

138. The Annual Report deals with a range of human rights abuses in Uganda, including child soldiers in the Lord's Resistance Army, the use of the death penalty, and female genital mutilation. Last year the Government wrote in its response to our predecessor Committee's Report: "Concerns about human rights abuses in northern Uganda are well founded. The Lord's Resistance Army (LRA) commits the majority of abuses. But Ugandan security personnel have also been identified as abusers and some individuals named in official Uganda Human Rights Commission (UHRC) Reports…The Government have consistently urged the Ugandan government to address these concerns, including by conducting full investigations and by removing those security personnel who violate human rights from the north of the country."[189] Uganda's Forum for Democratic Change also drew attention to the detention of opposition leader Dr Kizza Besigye and the threat his detention poses to democracy in Uganda.[190]

139. Human Rights Watch drew attention particularly to Uganda's role in gold smuggling from the Democratic Republic of Congo. "The Ugandan economy clearly benefits from the trade of illegal gold from Congo to Switzerland and elsewhere; a trade that is encouraged by the Ugandan government…In addition to involvement in natural resource exploitation, Uganda also continues to support armed groups operating in north-eastern Congo who carry out widespread violations of human rights including war crimes and crimes against humanity. Throughout 2005 there were clear indications that Uganda had not stopped such support. While pressure from the UK and other international actors did push Uganda to expel some of the Ituri armed group leaders from Ugandan soil, it has not yet halted support for these groups."[191] We also welcome the efforts of the United Kingdom's Permanent Representative to the United Nations to raise the question of human rights in Uganda on the UN Security Council.[192]

140. We conclude that the United Kingdom must urge the Ugandan authorities to cease their interference in the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) and to curtail the trade in illegal gold which underpins the wartime economy in Ituri and other regions which suffer severe human rights abuses. We recommend that the Government make clear its condemnation of the arrest of opposition politicians in Uganda and support for free and democratic elections there. We also recommend that the Government continue its efforts to bring the question of human rights in Uganda before the UN Security Council.

ZIMBABWE

141. The Annual Report includes an extensive discussion of human rights problems in Zimbabwe in its Countries of Concern section. "The human rights situation in Zimbabwe remained very negative over the last 12 months, culminating in yet another flawed election. The government retained its repressive laws and in some cases strengthened them."[193]

142. The Annual Report mentions:

Flawed parliamentary elections, involving violence against political opponents, in March 2005, which strengthened Robert Mugabe's control through his ZANU-PF;
Repression against Movement of Democratic Change (MDC) parliamentarians, with abductions, torture and politically motivated murder;
Further restrictions on media freedom and NGOs;
The growing hunger of the population in general.

143. Since the Annual Report's publication, the Mugabe regime has launched "Operation Murambatsvina" ("Operation Clear the Filth"), a campaign of forced evictions, mainly targeted against pockets of political opposition. The United Nations estimates that as many as 700,000 people have been evicted and their houses and properties demolished since the government launched the operation on 19 May 2005. The dislocation has caused great suffering for many who have lost their homes and possessions, and prevented effective AIDS treatment in the effected areas since clinics have been destroyed.[194] The Commonwealth Human Rights Initiative also raised the "deteriorating human rights and political situation in situation in Zimbabwe."[195]

144. Kate Allen described the situation in Zimbabwe, saying: "What we are seeing at Amnesty is fewer cases of torture but a clearer and a different change of strategy, which has moved towards the manipulation of food, which only goes to those who support the Mugabe regime; and…the removal now of 700,000 people in Operation Restore Order. We do see a humanitarian disaster unfolding in Zimbabwe."[196] She added that the United Kingdom had used its diplomatic pressure extensively.

145. Last year the Committee commended the Government's policy of pushing for the isolation of Zimbabwe. However, many of Zimbabwe's neighbours have not taken such a strong line against the Mugabe regime, and the Government said in its response that the Foreign Secretary was "surprised and saddened that Zimbabwe's neighbours had chosen to ignore the obvious and serial flaws in [Zimbabwe's] elections and had declared them fair. We will continue our dialogue with [the Southern African Development Community] (SADC), encouraging them to press for the return of good governance and respect for rule of law in Zimbabwe."[197] Kate Allen agreed, saying "I think that the more the UK government and the EU can do to encourage African states, and in particular South Africa who have been such a disappointment, to raise their concerns, so that it is seen as something that is led from within Africa, the better."[198] We asked the Minister how the Government was working to persuade Zimbabwe's neighbours to take a tougher stance towards Mugabe, and he told us that the Government engaged Zimbabwe's neighbours.[199]

146. However, we fear that the United Kingdom's remonstrations have achieved nothing to date. We asked the Government if it had considered referring Mugabe to the International Criminal Court (ICC) as a means to increase the pressure on Zimbabwe. The FCO said: "While we keep the ICC option in the case if Zimbabwe under review, we do not judge that enough members of the Security Council would at this stage be prepared to accept that Zimbabwe constitutes a threat to international peace and security, and thereby agree to refer it to the ICC Prosecutor."[200] We welcome the efforts of our Permanent Representative to the United Nations, as well as his US counterparts, to raise the question of human rights in Zimbabwe on the UN Security Council.[201]

147. We conclude that the Government should continue its policy of putting pressure on the Mugabe regime in Zimbabwe, and should do its utmost to win support for this policy from other states in Southern Africa in general and from South Africa in particular. We recommend that the United Kingdom start a campaign for the referral of Robert Mugabe to the International Criminal Court for his manifold and monstrous crimes against the people of Zimbabwe. We also recommend that the Government should continue its efforts to place the question of human rights in Zimbabwe before the UN Security Council.

Middle East

IRAN

148. The Annual Report has an extensive section on human rights in Iran, raising concerns about

The punishment of juveniles;

Freedom of expression;

Pressure on NGOs and civil society groups;

The detentions of Christians and other issues related to freedom of worship, particularly for Baha'is;

Detentions of political opponents;

Use of the death penalty and public executions;

Women's rights.

149. Last year the Committee raised concerns that the dialogue with Iran on the question of Iran's nuclear weapons would eclipse work to improve human rights in Iran.[202] The Government failed to answer the question, and instead emphasised its decision to sponsor a resolution in the UN General Assembly in December 2004 on Iranian human rights.[203] Since the report, the failure of the EU's talks with Iran to result in a slowdown of the nuclear programme, the subsequent breach of its undertakings to the EU, and the provocative restarting of uranium reprocessing activities at Iran's nuclear facilities have raised serious concerns about the Iranian nuclear programme. This issue has combined with growing tensions over apparent Iranian involvement in attacks on British forces in Iraq and extremely inflammatory comments about the destruction of Israel and repeated denial of the Holocaust by the Iranian president, have seriously damaged relations between Iran and the international community.[204]

150. The Foreign Secretary, Jack Straw, told us on 8 February 2006: "The whole world is worried about [the threat Iran poses to Israel]. I would not have spent more time and effort on the Iran dossier than any other since the Iraq war were I not deeply concerned about this threat and the threat that it poses to international peace and security. Increasingly, there is a wide international consensus which shares our opinions."[205] The Foreign Secretary also highlighted the problems of Iran's continued efforts to expand its nuclear programme.

151. Kate Allen outlined some of the problems in Iran, which include "curtailing of freedom of expression; the arrest of 26 internet journalists who have received prison sentences; students who have been imprisoned following demonstrations. We have heard allegations of torture and ill-treatment, and of course the deaths in Khuzestan, where 31 people died, and in Kurdistan, where 20 demonstrators were killed."[206] The National Spiritual Assembly of the Baha'is of the United Kingdom also described the continued persecution of Baha'is in Iran, and commented on the Annual Report by observing "that the compartmentalised nature of [the UK government's] reports does not offer a single, comprehensive and impartial view of the human rights situation in Iran."[207]

152. Human Rights Watch, commenting on the human rights dialogue between Tehran and London, stated: "On human rights issues, however, it has sometimes seemed that the criticism has not gone beyond mere rhetoric."[208] The National Spiritual Assembly of the Baha'is of the United Kingdom also cited problems with the UK-Iran diaologue, and their submission suggests the establishment of a "set of benchmarks by the which the process [of the UK-Iran human rights dialogue] could be evaluated."[209] Amnesty International also expressed their thanks to the Government for its intervention on the question of the death penalty.[210]

153. Dr Nazila Ghanea-Hercock took a gloomier perspective of human rights in Iran. She wrote: "Increasingly the evidence has shown that Iran has a constitutional system that has the veneer of democracy and balance of powers, but that in reality its framework makes the very notion of the independence of the judiciary and a society built on equality of opportunity and respect for rights impossible. The Iranian legal system is inherently gender-biased, racist, and has built within it a hierarchy of discrimination based on religion or belief….I therefore fear that any encouragement by the UK and EU for Iran to commit to human rights and dialogue will, at present, prove futile."[211] However, she stated her support for the UNCHR resolutions on Iran adopted between 1980 and 2002 as extremely important in identifying human rights violations in Iran.[212]

154. The Minister told us that the Government was "very deeply concerned about [human rights in Iran], and that is one of the reasons why we co-sponsored the United Nations General Assembly resolution on Iran."[213] It is clear that the Government has only recently changed its approach to the situation in Iran, as a statement by Foreign Secretary Jack Straw made clear, in response to Iran's decision to restart uranium enrichment activity.[214]

155. We conclude that human rights in Iran have deteriorated over the last year, and worsening relations are making dialogue increasingly difficult. We recommend that the Government set out what it hopes to achieve with the human rights dialogue with Iran, and that it continue its efforts to bring Iranian human rights to international attention and to urge its EU counterparts to do the same.

ISRAEL

156. The Annual Report contains an extensive section on human rights in Israel. The Report states that "Israel's failure to respect the human rights of Palestinians in the Occupied Territories remains a matter of grave concern. Actions by the Israel Defence Force, the impact of the barrier, restrictions on freedom of movement and settler violence cause great suffering to Palestinian citizens."[215] The FCO Annual Report deals with:

The barrier and appropriations of Palestinian land
Controls on freedom of movement for Palestinians
Targeted killings
Violence carried out by the Settler Community

The Committee explored some of these issues with Israeli and Palestinian interlocutors in a visit to the region in November 2005. We saw at first hand how the construction of the barrier had a serious impact on the daily lives of Palestinian people. Commenting on the impact of the barrier, Minister of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs Kim Howells, said on 18 January 2006: "The wall is not a barrier within the old green line. It would be ugly if it were, but it could be justified. However, it goes deep into Palestinian territory. It has divided Jerusalem and locked 55,000 Palestinian Jerusalemites out of Jerusalem. It has cut the west bank in two…The checkpoints and the other obstructions mean that the rest of the tiny territory is being split up into tiny, ungovernable cantons."[216]

157. Some commentators have criticised the FCO Report. The Council for Arab-British Understanding contend that in the Report "the scale of the human rights abuses [in Israel and the Palestinian Territories] are underestimated."[217] Their submission goes on to argue that the Report does not highlight the problem of Israeli settlement expansion, thanks to: its "low-key" response to the construction of the barrier; the lack of mention of discussions with Israeli officials about the rights of Arab-Israelis; and the failure to comment on torture by Israeli forces.[218]

158. Human Rights Watch also emphasised the problem of impunity in the Israeli Defence Forces.[219] Steve Crawshaw told the Committee that "something which is still insufficiently addressed is this question of impunity, which underlies so much in terms of the message that is being sent. The language of the Human Rights Report…was quite soft. It praised the fact that there was some kind of justice in connection with the Britons who had been killed. Those are such extraordinary, exceptional cases that it is really most inappropriate to use those as though they were an indication that things are getting substantially better. They are not."[220]

159. Ian Pearson, the Minister with responsibility for human rights, described how the FCO raised human rights issues and supported the peace process in the Middle East. He said: "It is important that we continue to exert and use what influence we have to encourage peace and prosperity in the region while at the same time keep pointing out human rights abuses and encouraging Israel to deal with those effectively."[221] He added that the Government had raised its concerns about the construction of the barrier as an obstacle to the peace process and about its impact on the livelihoods of local people. "When you are talking about confiscation or destruction of land, destruction of property, when you are talking about access…and particularly about the impact on farming…this is destroying people's livelihoods…It is a matter of great concern to the UK government."[222]

160. We conclude that the human rights situation for Palestinians in the Occupied Territories is not acceptable and we recommend that the Government expand its coverage in the Report to include more detail on the problem of impunity in the Israeli Defence Forces (IDF). We also recommend that the Government urge Israel to take human rights issues into greater account when dealing with the Palestinians, and that the Government should continue to restate its position that those parts of the barrier beyond the Green Line are illegal.

THE PALESTINIAN TERRITORIES

161. Human rights abuses, including extrajudicial detentions and torture, are frequent in the Palestinian Territories, where a history of limited democratic accountability within the political system, the lack of a rule of law and systematic abuses by the Palestinian security services continues on a daily basis.[223] The shelling of Israeli settlements from Palestinian Territory is also a major concern, while the victory of Hamas, which has espoused a policy of the destruction of Israel, raises fears of the rise of extremism among the Palestinian population at large. The FCO Annual Report also pointed to significant flaws in the Palestinian judicial system, such as the use of the death penalty by the Palestinian authorities, as well as frequent suicide bombings by non-state actors and terrorist groups, but did not otherwise examine in detail the human rights situation in the Palestinian Territories. The previous Committee had an opportunity to talk to victims of Palestinian suicide bombing attacks on a visit to Israel.

162. We asked Steve Crawshaw from Human Rights Watch about human rights in the Palestinian Territories. He told us: "On the one hand you have the continuance of suicide bombers, which are a crime against humanity…and a number of abuses, including physical abuse."[224] Amnesty International was also critical of the FCO Annual Report, and said that it focuses primarily on political developments in the Palestinian Territories, without exploring human rights matters in sufficient detail.[225]

163. We recommend that the Government should explore the human rights situation in the Palestinian Territories in a separate section in its next Report, and that it should explore in greater detail the extent of the abuses committed in the Territories.

SAUDI ARABIA

164. The Annual Report has an extensive section on Saudi Arabia, which says: "There has been a small but significant improvement in the situation in Saudi Arabia since our last Annual Report. However, the Saudi government has continued to violate human rights, including by restricting freedoms of expression and press, assembly, association, religion and movement. The government also continues to discriminate against women, foreigners, non-Muslims and non-Sunnis Muslims and to impose strict limitations on workers' rights."[226]

165. The Report refers in particular to:

The introduction of a new code for criminal procedure, although torture of detainees is still routine
Discrimination against non-Muslims and restriction of women's rights
The slow process of reform

166. Last year, the Committee called on the FCO to keep pressing the Saudi authorities to improve human rights,[227] while the year before the Committee raised concerns about the treatment of UK nationals such as Dr William Sampson, who confessed to a bombing while in Saudi police custody.[228] We are unable to comment on this particular issue since it is currently sub judice. However, the case highlights the problems which arise from placing emphasis on confessions as part of the judicial process in Saudi Arabia.

167. Human Rights Watch have raised concerns that the Government "may be contemplating a possible Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with the Saudis, regarding commitments not to torture those who might be deported to Saudi Arabia, along the lines of MOUs which have already been agreed with Jordan and Libya."[229] Additionally, Kate Allen of Amnesty International told the Committee: "We would recognise that there have been small steps. We are not sure whether those are significant or not. The human rights situation in Saudi Arabia is still absolutely dire in very many ways that we have documented, including appalling use of the death penalty and the use of torture."[230] The use of the death penalty for a broad range of crimes such as apostasy, drug offences, witchcraft, adultery and murder, as well as broad crimes such as 'acts of sabotage and corruption on earth', raises particular concerns.[231] The Committee had an opportunity to raise these and other issues with Saudi interlocutors on its visit to Riyadh in November 2005.

168. We conclude that the human rights situation in Saudi Arabia continues to give cause for grave concern. We recommend that the Government continue to make clear that the Saudi Kingdom's instances of discrimination against women and other human rights abuses which are endemic in Saudi Arabia, breed discontent and fall far short of universal standards. We recommend that the Government engage the Saudi authorities on the questions of women's rights and the rights of guest workers, the use of torture and of the death penalty for a wide range of crimes including apostasy, adultery and 'acts of sabotage and corruption on earth'.

SYRIA

169. The Annual Report contains little information on human rights in Syria, despite the lack of pluralism and political repression which marks that state. The imprisonment of political opponents of the government of Bashar al-Assad raises concerns about political freedom in Syria, while Damascus's efforts to interfere in Lebanon have earned Syria the condemnation of the international community. One particular concern was the assassination of Rafik Hariri, since a UN report established the involvement of Syrian officials in the killing,[232] and of other political opponents to the Syrian regime.[233]

170. We recommend that the Government set out in its reponse to this Report what it is doing to seek to improve human rights in Syria, and we also recommend that its next report should contain more information about Syria.

Asia-Pacific

Afghanistan

171. The Annual Report contains an extensive section on human rights in Afghanistan, outlining problems such as ongoing security risks and concerns about women's rights.[234] However, our witnesses agreed that the situation had improved under President Karzai.[235]

172. Nonetheless, Kate Allen of Amnesty International raised serious concerns. She said: "I think that when you are in a situation such as in Afghanistan at the moment, where security is…absolutely the overwhelming issue, particularly outside of Kabul, the situation does become quite bad. It is very much our experience that the levels of violence, discrimination and humiliation of women remain high within the country; that for safety's sake women are retreating back into the home; that it is very difficult for women and young girls, particularly in rural areas; and that we need to do more to support women in Afghanistan."[236]

173. Human Rights Watch also raised concerns about the lack of judicial proceedings against human rights abusers in Afghanistan, despite the large number of atrocities carried out over the last thirty years. Major political players today are amongst those accused of complicity in the massacres and human rights abuses of the struggle against the Soviet Union and the subsequent civil war, making difficult a process of reconciliation which would help ordinary Afghans come to terms with their traumatic history.[237] In its submission, Human Rights Watch called on the Government to "take a leadership role in addressing past abuses and make it clear to President Karzai that he should choose justice over good relations with abusive warlords."[238]

174. The FCO answered our questions on this matter in a letter. They wrote: "Post-conflict situations require a balance to be struck between reconciliation and holding individuals to account for what they may have done in the period of the conflict itself. But this does not mean that the UK, our partners, and the Afghan authorities themselves, are turning a blind eye to impunity in Afghanistan. The Government of Afghanistan and the international community, including the UK, are discussing a 'Transitional Justice Action Plan' for Afghanistan. A great deal of the momentum for this plan followed the publication of the Afghanistan Independent Human Rights Commission's report 'A Call For Justice', published in January 2005."[239] The letter also mentioned a conference in The Hague in June 2005 on Transitional Justice in Afghanistan, and the draft action plan which has now been launched.[240] The London Conference in January 2006 also put forward a series of means to establish human rights norms in Afghanistan.

175. The Committee is also seriously concerned about the problem of narcotics production in Afghanistan, and has met with the Afghan Minister with responsibility for the reduction of opium production. We will discuss this issue further in our report into the Foreign Policy Aspects of the War against Terrorism.

176. We conclude that human rights abuses in Afghanistan are manifold and serious, and that security is a particularly difficult challenge. We also have major concerns about the lack of judicial process against human rights abusers in Afghanistan and urge the Government to do its utmost to support any mechanisms which will implement justice and aid reconciliation in Afghanistan. We also recommend that the Government increase its support for women's rights programmes in Afghanistan.

BURMA

177. The Annual Report includes a section on human rights abuses in Burma. The Report states that the last year has seen no improvement in human rights in Burma, and that the political and security situation has deteriorated. The FCO's chief concerns are the incarceration of Aung San Suu Kyi, the leader of the democratically elected opposition, corruption and political interference in the judicial system, prison conditions, constraints on freedom of expression, ethnic discrimination, child labour and the lack of religious tolerance.[241] In their submission, the Jubilee Campaign emphasised the campaign of repression against the Karen, Karenni and Shan peoples in Burma.[242]

178. The FCO wrote to us about Burma, saying: "We remain deeply concerned about the political and human rights situation in Burma. We have been at the forefront of efforts over many years to bring pressure to bear on the military regime to reform and to respect human rights…Through the EU's Common Position on Burma we have imposed a comprehensive programme of targeted measures on the regime."[243] The letter added: "The UK and the EU recognise the importance of working with ASEAN and other countries in the region to promote reform and democratisation in Burma. We take, therefore, every opportunity to raise our concerns with ASEAN countries."[244] The decision of ASEAN to raise the question of Burma on 12 December 2005, then, is most welcome; we hope it leads towards some degree of reform. We also welcome the efforts of the United Kingdom Permanent Representative to the United Nations to raise the question of human rights in Burma on the UN Security Council.[245]

179. We conclude that the United Kingdom should maintain its policy of pressing the Burmese military junta to permit reform and introduce basic rights which are universal and inalienable, and that its efforts to bring other ASEAN states around to its perspective should not falter. We recommend that the Foreign and Commonwealth Office should continue to report on Burmese human rights in its Annual Report, and redouble its efforts to bring the question of abuses by the Burmese authorities to the attention of the UN Security Council.

CHINA

180. A lengthy section covers the problem of human rights abuses in the People's Republic of China (PRC). The Report says:

The UK continues to have serious concerns about basic human rights in China, including extensive use of the death penalty; torture; shortcomings in judicial practices and widespread administrative detention, particularly re-education through labour; harassment of human rights defenders and activists (NGOs, political activists, journalists and lawyers); harassment of religious practitioners and adherents of Falun Gong; the situation in Tibet and Xinjiang; and severe restrictions on basic freedoms of speech and association.[246]

The Report also listed the projects which the UK Government is supporting in China, which cover areas including: promoting judicial justice; reforming the death penalty review system; policing and human rights; and research into Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR).[247]

181. The Annual Report section on China focused on:

The question of ratification of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR);
The lack of co-operation with UN monitoring mechanisms, such as Special Rapporteurs;
Reform of administrative detention centres;
A reduced use of the death penalty;
Respect of the fundamental rights of all prisoners;
The lack of progress on freedom of religion;
The lack of cultural rights, particularly for minorities;
Human rights abuses in Xinjiang;
An end to jamming of BBC programming.

182. Human Rights Watch outlined a series of concerns in their submission but said that these "stand in sharp contrast to the apparent reluctant of senior government ministers publicly to confront human rights abusers, in many important contexts. At a press conference on November 7, a day before President Hu Jintao arrived on a state visit to the UK, the Prime Minister failed even to mention human rights when answering a Chinese journalist's question about what he would be discussing with President Hu."[248] One area of particular concern which has re-emerged following the statements made by Manfred Novak, the UN Special Rapporteur for Torture, on his return from China in December 2005, is that of torture. Mr Nowak made clear that torture in China is still widespread.[249]

183. Much of the exchange on human rights matters between London and Beijing takes place through the UK-China dialogue on human rights, which this year looked in particular at freedom of expression and civil society. However, last year the previous Foreign Affairs Committee criticised the Human Rights Dialogue, saying that it was failing to deliver results; in this context, the Committee recommended that the Government set specific goals and a timetable for the dialogue, and asked the Government how it worked with its partners in the EU. In its response, the Government argued that engaging China on human rights was a long term process and that setting timetables was inappropriate.[250]

184. Other commentators have criticised the dialogue. Kate Allen of Amnesty International told us: "We do not see any areas where progress is being made…What we have seen is that the UK-China human rights dialogue in June this year, which is now in its thirteenth round…We have no criticism of quiet diplomacy, if it is having an effect; but after the thirteenth round, we do question that and we would like to know what the British government sees as the progress to be made there." She added that "it is time for the British government to be absolutely, publicly clear about what it sees as the advantages of the dialogue, what progress it wants to see."[251]

185. However, the Human Rights Minister defended the human rights dialogue. He said: "Should we engage with a country and have a human rights dialogue or should we go down the route of UN resolutions? I believe that strategic engagement is very much the right path to follow as far as China is concerned."[252] In a memorandum to us, the FCO went further, saying:

We agree that China's progress on human rights is slow relative to the impressive economic changes in the country. We do not believe that this lack of speed means the dialogue is failing…We do not believe that establishing a timetable for the dialogue would improve its effectiveness. There are some human rights issues on which the Chinese Government is interested in making progress and might work with us towards agreed improvements. But there are other areas on which the Chinese Government is not interested in co-operation or is extremely hesitant about engagement…In such instances we find ourselves pursuing a role of moral advocacy rather than working with the grain of change in China. Against this background it is our view that agreeing a timetable with the Chinese Government would mean setting the target very low or—in some cases—it might prove impossible to set a meaningful target at all.[253]

The Committee is carrying out an inquiry into developments in East Asia, and we intend to return to the question of human rights abuses in China as part of that inquiry.[254]

186. We conclude that the UK-China human rights dialogue appears to have made glacial progress. We recommend that the Government set out in its response to this Report what measures it uses to determine whether the dialogue is a success, what it sees as the achievements of the dialogue to date, and why it wishes it to continue.

187. The situation in Tibet is another matter of serious concern. The Free Tibet Campaign raised concerns about human rights in Tibet, including the use of torture, saying that despite "being a signatory to the Convention Against Torture, torture remains endemic in prisons and detention centres throughout China and Tibet. In January 2005 a suspended death sentence against Tibetan religious leader Tenzin Deleg Rinpoche was commuted to life imprisonment. The case against Tenzin Deleg, who was accused of 'splittist activities' and taking part in 'causing explosions', has never been made public, but was based on a confession by his co-accused. Lobsang Dhondup. Dhondup publicly withdrew this confession, alleging he had been tortured. Dhondup was executed in January 2003."[255] The Free Tibet Campaign also raised the kidnap of the 11th Panchen Lama, Gedhun Choeki Nyima, in May 1995, which the Annual Report describes as a concern for the FCO.[256]

188. Commenting on the situation in Tibet, Kate Allen of Amnesty International told us: "We do not think it is improving. We continue to document abuse staking place in Tibet, particularly of monks and nuns and of other religious minorities. So we have nothing to say about improvement in Tibet."[257]

189. We conclude that the situation in Tibet is of great concern, and we recommend that the Government should make public its condemnation of the human rights abuses carried out by the Chinese authorities in Tibet.

INDONESIA

190. The Annual Report has a section on Indonesia as a country of concern, which describes the ongoing problems in Papua New Guinea, Aceh and East Timor. Last year the Committee outlined its fears about the Indonesian government's seeming willingness to use the tsunami as cover to perpetrate human rights abuses, and the Government response accepted the Committee's point. In the last year one recent worrying development, given the history of abuses committed by the Indonesian military in East Timor, Aceh and Papua New Guinea, has been the USA's decision to reinstitute military to military ties in November 2005.[258]

191. Tapol have raised concerns about Indonesia in general and about the situation in West Papua in particular in their submission, saying that they "believe that the FCO has underplayed the severity of the situation in West Papua both in its analysis and weak policy responses. The FCO's concern has not translated into the necessary diplomatic and economic pressure on Indonesia to improve the human rights situation and resolve the conflict peacefully according to the wishes of the Papuan people."[259] A submission by the Rt Hon Lord Anderson of Swansea also raised concerns about the treatment of minority faiths in Central Sulawesi, particularly bombings and beheadings of Christians.[260]

192. However, the Government takes a more positive line. The FCO wrote to us: "The human rights situation in Indonesia has improved in the last few years and we assess that President Yudhoyono is sincere in his attempts to push through reforms, including to the security sector. The current peace process in Aceh is an indication of his willingness to address some of the long running issues in Indonesia. The Indonesian Parliament has recently voted for the ratification of the International Covenants on Civil and Political Rights and on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights."[261]

193. On the matter of West Papua the FCO wrote: "As part of our regular dialogue with the Indonesian government we raise reports of human rights abuses in Papua. We have also encouraged the Indonesian government to engage in dialogue with Papuan representatives, and to proceed with full implementation of the Special Autonomy Legislation…President Yudhoyono has committed his government to resolving the Papuan question through dialogue, "in a peaceful, just and dignified manner"."[262]

194. We conclude that the improvements in human rights in Indonesia are welcome, but that the Government must engage with its Indonesian partners to move further towards reform, particularly in the light of the USA's decision to reinstate military to military ties with Indonesia. We also recommend that the Government should expand its coverage of the West Papua conflict in its Annual Report.

MALDIVES

195. The Annual Report makes scant mention of human rights abuses in the Maldives, but the Commonwealth Human Rights Initiative (CHRI) says: "The Maldives is plagued by human rights violations and disregard for the principles for participatory democratic governance and the rule of law. The press faces harassment…and civil society faces restrictions."[263]

196. CHRI goes on to say: "A clear and strong public statement is required to send a message to the Maldivian administration and other Commonwealth nations that actions that violate the Harare Principles are unacceptable and will not be overlooked by the Commonwealth. Continued silence implies acceptance and risks damaging the Commonwealth's reputation for membership being dependent on the principles of democracy and human rights articulated in the Harare Declaration."[264]

197. We conclude that the Government should include more information in the next Annual Report on the human rights situation in the Maldives.

NEPAL

198. The Annual Report has a short section on human rights in Nepal which tackles the proliferating concerns since the dismissal of Nepal's government and the assumption of power by King Gyanendra in February 2005. The King pledged that municipal elections would take place in February 2006;[265] these took place but a very low turnout of less than 20%, a general strike and allegations of intimidation by both the Maoists and the Government, which won overwhelmingly, raised serious doubts about the elections.[266] Parliamentary elections are due no later than April 2007, but at present the King continues to govern without democratic constraint.[267] The King's takeover was in response to the growing Maoist insurgency which has strengthened over the last few years, and has added to growing concerns that both the Nepali government and the Maoist insurgents carry out frequent abuses of human rights, such as torture, disappearances, beatings, and targeted attacks on journalists, human rights defenders and political activists.[268]

199. The United Kingdom reacted strongly to the February 2005 coup. The UK recalled its ambassador for consultations, appointed a human rights adviser to its post in Kathmandu and decided "to withdraw its plans to donate a further package of non-military assistance to Nepal."[269] Kate Allen of Amnesty International told us: "We see a situation of 200,000 people displaced. We know of 400 people, named people, who have disappeared. There is an absolute climate of fear."[270]

200. The FCO wrote to us on the question of human rights in Nepal, saying: "The human rights situation has been steadily deteriorating for several years and we remain deeply concerned by the serious abuses that are still being carried out by the Maoists and the security forces. The UN Special Rapporteur on Torture, Manfred Nowak, visited Nepal in September and his preliminary report indicated widespread and systematic use of torture by Nepalese security forces."[271] The letter also pointed to the United Kingdom's role as holder of the EU presidency in an EU visit to Nepal, during which the delegation made a strong public statement calling for the reinstitution of human rights standards, and democracy, and for an end to Maoist acts of terrorism.[272]

201. The letter went on to deal with the question of military support "On the issue of military assistance, this has been significantly reduced since the King took power on 1 February [2005]. Our military assistance was always predicated on the maintenance of basic democratic structures and procedures Following…the imposition of the State of Emergency…we withdrew proposals for a substantial further package of military assistance…At present we provide only very modest levels of assistance to the Royal Nepalese Army (RNA)…This consists of bomb disposal equipment, human rights advice and training and a handful of general professionalism courses."[273] The situation has not improved; on 19 January 2006 the Foreign Office Minister with responsibility for Nepal, Dr Howells, issued a statement condemning the arrest of political opponents.[274]

202. We conclude that the Government should maintain pressure on the King of Nepal to reintroduce democracy and to work to establish human rights standards throughout Nepal. We also condemn the bloody acts of terrorism perpetrated by the Maoist insurgents in Nepal. We recommend that the Government maintain only limited military assistance to the Nepali government until accountable government is reinstituted.

146 Foreign & Commonwealth Office, Response of the Secretary of State of Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, Annual Report on Human Rights, Cm 6571, May 2005 Back

147 Human Rights Annual Report 2005, p 71 Back

148 Human Rights Annual Report 2005, p 71 Back

149 Human Rights Annual Report 2005, p 74 Back

150 Ev 107 Back

151 Ev 107 Back

152 "Putin to scrutinise bill on NGOs", BBC News Online, 24 November 2005, news.bbc.co.uk Back

153 Ev 23 Back

154 Q 168 Back

155 Q 168 Back

156 "The lesson that the west must learn from the Moscow rock", The Guardian, 26 January 2006 Back

157 "Uzbekistan: burying the truth", Human Rights Watch, Vol 17, No 6, September 2005 Back